VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 497
899
India Government Mint, was convicted by the Addl.Sessions Judge
and on appeal, the High Court of Bombay ordered suspension of the
conviction. The applicant contended that the order of conviction has
become null and void and the order of suspension from service should
be revoked.
The Central Administrative Tribunal held that suspension of
conviction does not mean acquittal and that as the appeal is pending,
the conviction is not operative till the decision of the appeal.
(497)
(A) Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944
(B) Disproportionate assets — attachment of property
Special Judge has jurisdiction to order attachment
under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944
even at the stage of investigation.
Rongala Mohan Rao vs. State,
2000(1) ALD (Crl.) AP641
The revision is directed against the order passed by the
Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam under the Criminal
Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, on the ground that theACB Court
has no jurisdiction since the case has not reached the stage of trial.
The High Court observed that the properties sought to be
attached are within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge for ACB
Cases, Visakhapatnam. Certainly the Special Judge has power to
order attachment even in cases which are at the investigation stage.
If literal meaning is given to the term ‘District Judge’ used in sec.3 of
the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, it would result in
dichotomy of the jurisdiction and such interpretation is not called for.
The Special Judge is of the rank of the District Judge. If he has
power to order attachment during trial, certainly he has power to pass
any order axillary to his powers even when the case is at the
investigation stage. It is the ACB Department which is dealing with